Wickard v. Filburn, .gov case/ruling on food "self" production

[gunDriller]

From 1942 -

A farmer was charged for growing to much wheat for feeding his own animals. I appears .gov needlessly messing with agriculture is nothing new....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

"Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had imposed limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

The Supreme Court, interpreting the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8 (which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;") decided that, because Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government."

[sirgonzo420]

Ain't that case a doozy?

[Cobalt]

The USD is traded nationally and since the FED continues to print too much it is restricting how much something someone can buy with it.

[mick silver]

dam . i just dont know any more . sad day when a man cannot grow what he wants on his land . this country is so fucked i dont have words for it any more

[po boy]

He had signed up for a .gov program to get a price subsidy and didn't follow the rules.He was only to grow a certain allotment of wheat I believe so as to keep the price up and since what he grew as feed wouldn't be purchased it had the opposite affect of what the programs intent.


Filburn’s argument that the act deprived him of due process, Justice Jackson succinctly disagreed: “It is hardly lack of due process for the Government to regulate that which it subsidizes.


It also show how regulation attaches through commerce frns being commercial instruments leaves everything that frn touches is in commerce thus subject to Article 1 section 8.


This case established that even activities that seem wholly local are within Congress’s regulatory power under the commerce clause. Consequently, much of the expansive New Deal and Great Society legislation was enacted pursuant to this power.

[gunDriller]

He had signed up for a .gov program to get a price subsidy and didn't follow the rules.He was only to grow a certain allotment of wheat I believe so as to keep the price up and since what he grew as feed wouldn't be purchased it had the opposite affect of what the programs intent.


Filburn’s argument that the act deprived him of due process, Justice Jackson succinctly disagreed: “It is hardly lack of due process for the Government to regulate that which it subsidizes.


It also show how regulation attaches through commerce frns being commercial instruments leaves everything that frn touches is in commerce thus subject to Article 1 section 8.


This case established that even activities that seem wholly local are within Congress’s regulatory power under the commerce clause. Consequently, much of the expansive New Deal and Great Society legislation was enacted pursuant to this power.


PHEW

so as long as i don't apply for a subsidy i can grow all the wheat i want for personal consumption.

maybe i can package it in 5 pound bags that say "Israel did 9-11", then advertise it as a conversation piece.

yeah, i'm sure the USDA would go for that :sarc:


http://usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=bios_merrigan.xml&contentidonly=true

"Kathleen A. Merrigan is the Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Working alongside Secretary Tom Vilsack, Merrigan oversees the day-to-day operation of USDA's many programs and spearheads the $149 billion USDA budget process."


no idea they had such a big budget !

i know how we can save $148 billion.

[Twisted Titan]

subsidies today..........

personal consumption tomarrow.

the person that is provsioned......is the person that can resit

[madfranks]

PHEW

so as long as i don't apply for a subsidy i can grow all the wheat i want for personal consumption.



Nope, it doesn't matter one way or another. Read this account of Joseph Blattner, a farmer who accepted no subsidies or anything else from the gov't but under the "Agriculture Adjustment Act" he was still not allowed to grow his own wheat for personal uses.

http://mises.org/daily/3759


When the County Production and Marketing Administration office in Collegeville, Pennsylvania, notified Blattner and his son John, who manages the farm, that they could plant 16 acres of wheat and no more, they paid no attention. They sowed 24 acres, with more in corn, enough for the proper feeding of 6,000 laying hens that are the mainstay of their operation on North Wales Road, near the old Welsh community of Center Square in Worcester township, just beyond Philadelphia's suburbs.

When the agency men came to check on the acreage, Blattner told them to go away; he wasn't having strangers tromp down his wheat.

But after the harvest came a notice from the Collegeville office. The Blattners were fined $1.12 a bushel on an estimated 160 bushels produced on the excess eight acres — a total of $179.20. Moreover, their entire wheat crop for that year was subject to government lien, to insure payment. When the man came around, Blattner said,

I won't pay. This is still a free country, ain't it? We need that wheat for the chickens. A man still has a right, if he don't obligate himself to government, to farm the way he likes.

More at link...

[sirgonzo420]

Nope, it doesn't matter one way or another. Read this account of Joseph Blattner, a farmer who accepted no subsidies or anything else from the gov't but under the "Agriculture Adjustment Act" he was still not allowed to grow his own wheat for personal uses.

http://mises.org/daily/3759


When the County Production and Marketing Administration office in Collegeville, Pennsylvania, notified Blattner and his son John, who manages the farm, that they could plant 16 acres of wheat and no more, they paid no attention. They sowed 24 acres, with more in corn, enough for the proper feeding of 6,000 laying hens that are the mainstay of their operation on North Wales Road, near the old Welsh community of Center Square in Worcester township, just beyond Philadelphia's suburbs.

When the agency men came to check on the acreage, Blattner told them to go away; he wasn't having strangers tromp down his wheat.

But after the harvest came a notice from the Collegeville office. The Blattners were fined $1.12 a bushel on an estimated 160 bushels produced on the excess eight acres — a total of $179.20. Moreover, their entire wheat crop for that year was subject to government lien, to insure payment. When the man came around, Blattner said,

I won't pay. This is still a free country, ain't it? We need that wheat for the chickens. A man still has a right, if he don't obligate himself to government, to farm the way he likes.

More at link...



One consents when one "understands the charges".

[JDRock]

...so the country was in a depression and the feds were banding together to destroy food...
i put nothing past these sociopaths.

[sirgonzo420]

...so the country was in a depression and the feds were banding together to destroy food...
i put nothing past these sociopaths.


Don't forget that their "chosen" bankster buddies caused the depression in the first place...

[gunDriller]

the woman who runs the community garden in Sonoma County allowed someone to remove my organic wheat crop in 2009.

whoever it was did it with her permission. when i reported it to her, she said "oh how terrible" - but never reported the theft to the police.

i would like to confront her, using the email list for the entire garden.

it would help to know more about the US gov's & Monsanto's wheat suppression programs.

she is a Jewish woman, a DJ, who manages a Lutheran church. a real scumbag, a combination of happy face and back-stabbing. my guess is, she is a Sayanim. she works hard to be "connected" ... she even lives on a street named "Champs D'Elysses" ... Norcal snobbiness.

any info you guys could give me about organic wheat suppression would be great. sounds like a lot of you had already heard about the Wickard Filburn & similar cases.

i had only heard about the Percy Schmeizer case in Canada, and then my own experience having my own small crop removed. no other plants were touched, and the wheat was not mature - it was not stolen to feed someone.

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

Where I come from, the word organic means "Carbon Based" (as in chemistry) and non-organic or inorganic is non-carbon based, i.e. metals.

The Wickard v. Filburn ruling is despicable. "You're messing up our market manipulation by growing your own chicken feed".

[gunDriller]

what i mean by organic is -
* non-GMO. so the wheat i grow can be used for food, or for seed - the end result is live, viable seed.
* no massive chemicals. insecticidal soaps at most for slowing down the bugs.